Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I have been mulling this point over since I started my thread asking for advice for writing a Nid list for the upcoming GT. I have been chatting to a lot of people and reading a lot articles about successful tourney armies and my question is this:

Are tactics really used at tournaments?

IMO it seems that most of the successfull armies are simply incredibly well suited to a single role, hence the 'power gamer' (Note: this is from the majority I have seen, I am aware that some armies differ).
While writing a powerful list might be considered a form of tactics (not by me though) it seems that once they are on the table they do one trick, albeit very well, but nothing else. They either stand back and blast with overwhelming firepower, assault with lightning speed etc... Where's the cunning ploys and tactics? Where is the meeting of two strategic minds striving to outdo each other over the constantly twisting tides of battle?
Okay, I realise that might have been a bit melodramatic in the last sentence, but the point still stands. I feel that the tourneys should be won by the best general, not by the biggest power gamer.
I can only comment on 40K gaming, but I'd like to see if Fantasy players feel there is the same issue, what with the game play being very different.

Maybe GW should run a special tourney where you only play two games a day, but get longer game times and there are slight, but not crippling, restrictions on what you can take? Would encourage a more tactical and I feel enjoyable approach.

By the way, I am aware that some may respond with "if you don't like tourneys don't go". I will give my rebutle in advance by stating that I don't normally go to tourneys for the reason stated above, however this years GT is more for the fact it's a road trip with mates rather then me wanting to do particularly well.

Great question. To tell the truth, I have sometimes wondered how much tactics play into a game of 40K at all. Having played few other tabletop games, though, this is only a suspicion, and maybe others can speak to this point with greater lucidity than I.

I completely agree. It's a point I've brought up before in all the 'powergaming' threads.

It is actually incredibly easy to build a winning 40k army. Pick your army of choice. Find a unit that is good value and does ONE thing REALLY well. Take as many as you possibly can (spam).

Because you expect people (your enemies) to take balanced forces, by doing this you are gambling that their balanced force won't have enough of whatever it needs to defeat you.

Taking a 'spam' list or a one of the standard 'competitive' lists you can pick up on any internet forum does NOT mean you're any sort of tactical genius.

Taking a balanced, fair (read: not beardy) force that allows your opponent the CHANCE to beat you, and then winning ANYWAY. This is the sort of player I'd applaud the tactics of...

40K is full of super units and special conditions and stuff. It doesn't mean tactics aren't important, but if you want a game with balanced units so it's all in the tactics, play Napoleonics.

A good army will give you an advantage, but if you dont know what you're doing with it then you probably wont win. A good player with a bad list will often beat a bad player with a good list.

It may be well and good that you're army is great at shooting or assaulting, but you have to make the descison of which targets to shoot and which units to assault so that you get the best benefit.

Which army you are playing and playing against will also require you to change the descisions you make

Then there are other things like unit possitioning, deployment, reserve choice, outflanking, deepstriking, cover and loads of other things that you have to make a choice about, some of which are not obvious at first glance.

So yes, I think tactics are used in tournament gaming.

Do you mean more about tactics while actually playing? Such as deploying your troops a certain way so you have a strong flank, or spliting your transports and trying to use a pincer type of attack. I know the people i play with use all sorts of these tactics mainly because we all watch a little to much of the history channel.

Depends on the level of tournament play I guess. I've never been in any big tournaments (Ard Boyz, GT's, etc), so I can't speak from experience in those.

All of the ones I've been in though, I've always brought a balanced force and used tactics to make it work. It's been pretty effective for me. I've always placed in the top 3 of every tournament I've been in.

Regwon wrote:Then there are other things like unit possitioning, deployment, reserve choice, outflanking, deepstriking, cover and loads of other things that you have to make a choice about, some of which are not obvious at first glance.

Hmm, I guess so.

acreedon wrote:Do you mean more about tactics while actually playing?

That's more what I was meaning. I was thinking more along the lines of adjusting your battleplan to the changing fortunes of the game, such as reacting to unforseen events, bad luck on the dice, or even more favourable luck then anticipated.
Most of the power gamers (as has already been stated) tend to have a one trick pony army and they tend to be very unflexible when it comes to changing plans during battle. For example a power gamer shooty army might decimate most opponents in the shooting phase, but if you can get a decent assault you'll cripple them. Power gamers I've played (and sadly there have been a few) have very little tactical accumen. If their 'one trick' is foiled they tend to go to pieces and their army crumbles. I fought a SM power gamer a while ago and once I'd managed to get my Nids in amongst his forces he conceeded the game at my turn 3 (he went first).
I do prefer games against more balanced lists because it allows for a more exciting game as the fates of each player rise and fall each turn. The variety of units also allow for a more flexible approach to the tides of battle, which is good as it doesn't necessarily mean you're humped when your main battle plan goes up the spout.
I would also state that tactics are used in non-tourney games (at least where I play), but it does depend on the overall skill of the opponent.

To me use of tactics is evident in WH40k. Although what I call tactics may be termed differently by others.

Years ago I played MtG. When preparing for a tournament in MtG you cared about deckselection. You could go with a Balanced deck that would respond to the game your opponent would bring to you (Blue/White Balance for instance) or with an Agressive deck (Black weeny for instance).

A similar discussion is true for WH40k ofcourse. In general you can go Horde vs. Resilience, Shooty vs. CC and be focussed on mobility or rather stationary. These selections have an impact on the way you play your game and respond to your opponents game. Decisions concearning deployment are heavily affected ofc. But also reacting to perceived threat and establishing greater threat projection. There are concepts like refused flank, divide and conquer etc. I think tactics play a decisive roll in every battle I play.

If I regularly beat my regular opponents balanced IG-army and he changes it next time to an all mechanised list to have an edge vs. my CSM, thats trying out a different tactic right? If, when faced with that mechanised army, I choose to Deep strike a significant part of my army, then thats a tactical desicion too I'd say... Etc.

Am I talking about other concepts here than implied by the OP's questions or do others have very different experiences?

I have never played any turnys other then the one at my local once a year.

To answear your question, no there is no tactics in 40k once you have made your list thats it, games are won by lists and dice not by generals.

You should try fantasy it is way more tactical but if you run into a demon play just walk away dont even put stuff on the board just walk away.

my 2 cents

Brightdarkness wrote:I have never played any turnys other then the one at my local once a year.

To answear your question, no there is no tactics in 40k once you have made your list thats it, games are won by lists and dice not by generals.

You should try fantasy it is way more tactical but if you run into a demon play just walk away dont even put stuff on the board just walk away.

my 2 cents

I couldn't think of anything particularly snarky to say so here is a picture of Cartman and "Mr. Jefferson". Too early?

Brightdarkness said it the best. Tactics can only go so far, for instance:

Buddy plays Tau and lines up his broadsides so take out encroaching enemy targets as they get close. Fails to wipe out a Vindicator, problem starts. Now the Landraider crusader is on him along with the str 10 pie plate, meanwhile his 5 str 10 guns (4 of which are TL) are missing and failing to pen.

Basically what I'm saying is that in a game that requires the use of a random medium (dice) to determine outcomes, strategy rarely goes beyond the first round of play.

Well I guess I have a couple of comments about this thread.

I have no idea what "Beardy" means. Well, I do, but I don't like it as a means of rating a list. I would rather it refer to people rather than lists. If you play someone who's nice, friendly, and sporting, who just happens to have brought a tough list, how can you call him/her (or their list) "beardy"? They brought a legitimate army to the tournament and if you don't like it, tough s*@&. Balanced armies CAN win tournaments, although a lot of the time they don't because of strange tournament restrictions/people's overall perceptions of them.

A balanced list is a list that can take on all armies, in different scenarios, in different deployments, with different terrain, and still have an above-average chance of winning. Just because I don't take 6 bad troop choices in my army, does that make me a "beardy" or "unbalanced" player? Playing to an armies strengths doesn't make someone "cheesy" or a "jerk". A variety of units is great, until you realize you get your butt handed to you everytime you play.

I use to just pickup battleforces, and then the odd unit to fill out the army and just get a couple of games in. My personal priority was to build a fun, well painted/modeled army. But when you get your butt handed to you every time by someone who decides not to play MY game, but played the game for what it was, suddenly I wasn't having as much fun as I use to.

Any game is governed by a certain set of rules, just like a battlefield. Smart generals know how to use those rules to their advantage (tactics), and exploit their armies strengths while minimizing their weaknesses (tactics). A shooting army that fails to stop an assaulting force has failed to use the appropriate tactics (and vice versa). This doesn't mean it's not balanced. If my Tau are fighting a genestealer, no one can blame me for being "beardy" if I choose NOT to advance into his face? Or if I decide to perform a fighting retreat? These art TACTICS, not beardy moves. NO I will not fight you in close combat mr. genestealer.

By your definition of "tactics" the only REAL army is space marines, which can perform in all the phases. Other armies are just gimmicky.

Brightdarkness wrote:I have never played any turnys other then the one at my local once a year.

To answear your question, no there is no tactics in 40k once you have made your list thats it, games are won by lists and dice not by generals.

You should try fantasy it is way more tactical but if you run into a demon play just walk away dont even put stuff on the board just walk away.

my 2 cents

My Daemons would disagree with you. Which units will go in my first wave for a particular opponent? (Hint: this WILL change based upon my opponent and the terrain; I don't start the same units in a KP game against Land Raider spam as I do against horde orks in Capture & Control.) Where do I want them to land? What do I do as each unit scatters off the mark? What do I do as various units arrive from reserves...or don't arrive? Do I use the icon on the board, or drop elsewhere and risk scattering?

Tactics in 40k during gameplay include movement, target selection, and responding both to the enemy and to dice. Some armies can be built to utilize a narrower range of tactics, but even the most simplistic of armies has a certain minimum of choices to make.

Brightdarkness wrote:To answear your question, no there is no tactics in 40k once you have made your list thats it, games are won by lists and dice not by generals.

Wow. Just... I don't even know what to say.

OK, I do know what to say. I completely disagree with that statement. Utterly and totally.

Any time you play any sort of game, there are tactics. Even something as basic as Settlers of Catan has tactics (do I wait to get that Ore card I really need, or do I trade to get 3 clay so I can use my port to trade for that ore card), and 40k is no different. Fantasy has more maneuver tactics due to the limited way troops can move and charge, but 40k is a tactical game. The army design portion is the strategy portion of the game, where you're taking the big picture, but determining which units perform which tasks is the tactics portion of the game. Do I run my Firewarriors out of line-of-sight of the Lootas, or do I stand and shoot the mob of Orks near me? Again, a very basic example, but an example of one nonetheless.

I've only played Fantasy a very little bit, so I can't compare levels of "tactical-ness" between the two games.

I have a Devastator squad. Should I park this Landraider in front of them and leave it there? No because that would not be a brilliant tactical (common sense) move. I totally agree with Iorek.

Fantasy and 40k are very different, but to discount 40k (or any particular army_ because of its differences is just plain stupid.

tac⋅tics

–noun
1. (usually used with a singular verb) the art or science of disposing military or naval forces for battle and maneuvering them in battle.
2. (used with a plural verb) the maneuvers themselves.
3. (used with a singular verb) any mode of procedure for gaining advantage or success.

I think we are talking about #3 here.

TACTICS
I have always maintained there are tactics in 40k because the missions change, fairly drastically in 40k. Playing a KP game versus a DOW assault for 2 objectives is a very different game.

POWER ARMIES
To the OP point, about power armies, most power armies do rotate around a single offensive combination, and this should be easy to see coming, and therefore, predictable, and therefore beatable.

VS WHFB
40k has missions that drastically change the objective of the game, making one have to adapt, moreso than to just what the opposing forces are.

Specifically, a 40K army designed to take objectives may be to KP heavy, a KP light army, may not have enough scoring units to take objectives, and a mobile enough army to take objectives may not have enough assault power to keep them and or give away to many KP with it's transports. It is a difficult balance for army building, but also for deployment, and order of events. More so than the distance guessing, baiting, retreating and counter charge game of WHFB, which is essentially the same game in every engagement.

Augustus wrote:tac⋅tics

VS WHFB
40k has missions that drastically change the objective of the game, making one have to adapt, moreso than to just what the opposing forces are.

Specifically, a 40K army designed to take objectives may be to KP heavy, a KP light army, may not have enough scoring units to take objectives, and a mobile enough army to take objectives may not have enough assault power to keep them and or give away to many KP with it's transports. It is a difficult balance for army building, but also for deployment, and order of events. More so than the distance guessing, baiting, retreating and counter charge game of WHFB, which is essentially the same game in every engagement.

I'm going to have to disagree with you here. I play both regularly and I can tell you right away, 40k is MUCH easier to learn and play well than fantasy. Your argument of taking a balanced list to deal with objectives is a good one, but that isn't what I think the OP was talking about when he was suggesting "tactics." Once the game is underway, fantasy has tactics in every phase of the game, there's a reason a 2k fantasy game (atleast around my parts) takes almost twice as long as a 40k game. That "baiting and misdirecting" you were talking about is much more trickier than what it seems. Orcs and goblins are considered one of the (if not the) weakest army in fantasy, yet I've beaten daemons and VCs in massacres, and have read about others winning large tournies with them. There has to be a certain level of tactical knowledge needed to pull that off.

As far as tactics in 40k, I started not too long ago (couple months) and quickly put together a 2200 point army of orks, knowing little to nothing of the game and it's mechanics when deciding my troops (I went off which looked the coolest) and have actually done really well at my local FLGS.

I'm not trying to stir anything up, just saying, fantasy is a bit trickier than a what a lot of 40k people think.

For the most part the people who say thereare no tactics in 40k don't win very many games outside of 2 people. One trick pony armies are not powergamer armies. They are mid-level armies that can easily beat the novice player. High level armies are indeed take-on-all-comers lists that adapt to scenarios, terrain and the enemies army.

Tactics begin at army design and continue through deployment and the game. Let's face it if you make a lousy list there is not much you can do. No amount of tactics will get Napoleon to defeat the current 101 airborne cav.

For me deployment is one of the most crucial aspects of tactics in 40k. I must deploy units in such a way that they support each other, can succeed in shootin/assault even if 1-2 of them are lost to the enemy and finally I must deploy in such a way that I can expect a reasonable chance to complete the objective.

During the game the dice rule, however good army building and deployment can begin to affect the dice odds. You can never make sure of success (even a pair of aces can still lose in Hold'em), but your tactics can shift the % in your favor to make a positive outcome more likely.

Some things to increase your chances, in no particular order.

1) Multiple units must be able to accomplish the same thing. That doesn't mean 3 units of Oblits to kill tanks, it means you need Oblits, Troops and probably a tank or two that can all destroy tanks. If you only bring troops and Oblits you might face an army of nothing but starcannons, then you'd wish you had a lascannon toting tank. If you only brought Oblits, then a single outflanking Demolisher can wipe out your tank killing power in one shot.

2) Make sure more than half your army can move and still be affective. Whether that means troops embarked on transports or a lot of move and fire weaponery it often pays to be able to move somehwere and still inflict some damage on the enemy.

3) Keep the scenario objective in mind each turn. I've seen plenty of players who decide killing the enemy is to much fun to win. They either move off objectives or more so, leave only one unit behind to secure the primary objective while the rest of the army runs off to kill the last fire warrior which means nothing. Also deploy your army with the intent of securing the primery objective, not just hiding every game.

4) Target priority. During the shooting phase and assault phase, make sure you know which enemy units are the biggest threat to your army and what you need to do to win the game. It is not always the big poiint models/units that are the biggest threat to winning a game and many players get caught up either killing or protecting the big stuff.

5) Know the rules. This means core rulebook, but also the army rules for each army out there. I don't know how many times I read a DE Ard Boyz battle report that had the following words in there "....and they were out of range because of the nightshields.." Or how many times I heard someone forget to use their own searchlights during the first turn nightfight.


There are other strategies in 40k for army building, deployment and in-game tactics which need to be learned from experience.

Its already been stated but a bad player can take a good list and lose to a good player with a bad list.


Now more than any edition Tactical decisions come in to play 2nd edition was really a hammer anvil style game with whether or not your power beat theirs.


I see a lot of people that do not go to ground period with marines. Its a brutally efficient tactic, go to ground get a coversave lose enough fall back, you can now act normally during your turn.


Thats just a for instance.


You can take 2 10 man nob squads in 1500 points and it doesnt matter.

Tactics to me doesnt matter on your list, but what you do with your units. That said, there isnt much to do with units that impacts the game immensely (tactics wise), other than outflanking against vehicles or against soft targets.

Really, everything seems to have become a scenario of "if I shoot that with this, whatre the chances of killing them?" The only tactic on the battlefield outside of outflanking is shooting soft targets with big guns it seems.

I think there are a lot of tactics with setting up your army and thinking through what is going to move where. I don't really think you can win a game by just putting down your models and not thinking through what they are going to do.

Janthkin wrote:

Brightdarkness wrote:I have never played any turnys other then the one at my local once a year.

To answear your question, no there is no tactics in 40k once you have made your list thats it, games are won by lists and dice not by generals.

You should try fantasy it is way more tactical but if you run into a demon play just walk away dont even put stuff on the board just walk away.

my 2 cents

My Daemons would disagree with you. Which units will go in my first wave for a particular opponent? (Hint: this WILL change based upon my opponent and the terrain; I don't start the same units in a KP game against Land Raider spam as I do against horde orks in Capture & Control.) Where do I want them to land? What do I do as each unit scatters off the mark? What do I do as various units arrive from reserves...or don't arrive? Do I use the icon on the board, or drop elsewhere and risk scattering?

Tactics in 40k during gameplay include movement, target selection, and responding both to the enemy and to dice. Some armies can be built to utilize a narrower range of tactics, but even the most simplistic of armies has a certain minimum of choices to make.

If you are responding to his comment about Demons, he is refering to fantasy, where they are fondly refered to as "Cheese Demons", or "Demons of Cheese".

If you are refering to tactics in 40k, then I agree

5 turns doesn't allow for a lot of strategy :/

That's a load of bull.

Bookwrack wrote:That's a load of bull.

+1. if you don't use any tactics and just hope everything works, i dont see how you could win a game.

Whenever I see a thread title with the word "tactics" in it, I just groan. There's no single definition that will appease everyone. Even quoting the dictionary doesn't do it. I think the nature of asking the question is someone who doesn't think a game measures up to what they think of as "tactics," and therefore they wonder if the game has them at all.

The way I usually say it is "40K uses 40K tactics." This was a lesson hard-learned for me, as I had thought in the beginning that 40K would provide a strategic and tactical experience similar to that I would expect from studying World War II, but it isn't the same thing.
I had to broaden my definition of what "tactics" meant, and then decide whether I liked the tactics of one game or another better. Flames of War is my favorite TTW of all time because it provides an experience closest to what I would expect from a TTW, but that's my bias in play.

To me, the difference between strategy and tactics is scale. Your "strategy" is your overall battle plan, that which once set in motion is difficult to change without first withdrawing and rethinking, or at least without significant logistic challenges and may demand a lull in your offensive momentum, or a withdrawal from defensive positions to establish new lines. Your "tactics" are the small, unit-by-unit decisions in a battle which dictate success or failure in your actual engagements.

So, taken from this perspective, of course 40K has strategy and tactics.


Let's say I need to take an Objective. My opponent has Terminators deployed nearby. Part of my strategy has to be to take out those Terminators as they're extremely survivable and hence a really good choice to hold an Objective.

The unit(s) I use to kill those Terminators, that's a tactical choice. I can stand off with a Vindi and drop pie plates on them, in which case other tactical decisions have to be made to protect the Vindi. I can roll up with my Sternguard with 7 combi-plasmas and hose down the Terminators. Then I may want my Libby casting Null Zone to support the attack, in which case I have other tactical decisions to make about getting the Librarian in range...but in either case, the strategy, the objective, has not changed. Kill the Terminators.

The basic strategy, once decided, is something I am relatively committed to as my forces all move to support that strategy; but the individual unit tactics I use to accomplish the goals of that strategy may change greatly depending on a roll of the dice or enemy action.



Now, to address the OP more directly, when it comes to tournaments and competitive gaming, I think you add a third piece of the puzzle, logistics. The science of what materiel, in this case units, to take. It becomes more important in a tourney than in casual play, and thus demands more concentrated attention. Logistical strategy, in turn, determines the available panoply of battlefield strategies that you can employ.

The logistics of an Ork Horde are building 150+ Shoota Boyz and the other units that support them, in which case my strategy is going to be "Run across the table screaming while running into the maw of the enemy and sweep them off the table like a green wave." This is not an army built for subtlety, and the strategic choices available to me are few.

But the tactics that I use on the table to employ that strategy will change from game to game. Which enemy unit do I want to run my Boyz screaming like lunatics into first? Do I want to position some of the other Boyz to give cover saves to the more important Boyz? What's the general direction I point the Waaagh! in, and when do I use it?

The basic strategy of running in close like a madman as soon as possible is the same from game to game, but the unit-to-unit "tactical" decisions I make ought to be varied from match to match based on my opponent's army, the terrain, and the objectives of that mission.

Even the most powerful list, in the hands of a dunce, can lose games if the tactics are not sound...if I don't get up close with my Ork Horde they'll get shot to death.

Cairnius wrote:Words of Great Wisdom

I think that is a post we're going to need to save for posterity as the definitive answer for the next time this interminable topic comes up.

Agreed

I know the horror of playing Power Gamers (or Beards) and it can be frustrating and not at all fun. Some peope are in it simply to win it and so strategy tends to go out the window as opposed to things that are sure-fire bets.

A good example (but not ar-gaming related...well sort of) is Command & Conquer 3 on the PC. All the armies in that have good tactics and it is immensly fun. But for some people fun isn't enough and so the horrific "Scorpion Spam" raises its ugly head (swamping the enemy with one type of tank in overwhelming numbers)

This translates into 40K as well, as people who REALLY want to win at the cost of fun or trying something a bit zany will go with unit spamming or power-lists. Alot of people in Tournies will be this kind of person (most but not all)

If you're looking for tactics though, All you should know is the following:

1: Get Orks
2: Get Lots of Orks
3: Get Big Mek + Shokk Attack Gun
4: Laugh Your Ass Off as it breaks yet again ^^